Post by gwiz on Jul 28, 2010 7:17:41 GMT -4

Well, he's a biologist, so no doubt he feels pretty much the same way about evolution deniers that I, as an aerospace engineer, feel about Apollo deniers. In other words, here's the greatest thing that's been achieved in our respective areas and these people try to deny it. I admit he would be a better advocate if he held the anger in check more, but I can't blame him for being angry in the first place.

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man

Post by Jason on Jul 28, 2010 12:06:10 GMT -4

After all, they believe they are right where around 90% of humanity is wrong.

Appeal to popularity. At some point in time, 90% of humanity believed the earth was flat. Did that make it true?

This wasn't an appeal to popularity. It wasn't an argument that atheists are wrong because 90% of humanity believes otherwise. It was in fact an argument that someone who believes they know better than 90% of humanity is often arrogant.

Secondly, how can one be "wrong" about their absence of belief in something?

There is a difference between merely not believing in something because you believe the evidence for its existence is unconvincing and taking the active stance that the evidence is in that something definitely doesn't exist and that those who believe otherwise are foolishly disregarding the inconvenient facts because of the emotional appeal of their belief. There is also a distinct difference between "I choose not to believe, so leave me alone and I'll leave you alone," and "this belief of yours is evil and must be fought as much as possible."

On a related note, what percentage of humanity do you believe is wrong, in that it does not follow the same religious tenets you do?

I don't necessarily believe that those who don't follow my religious tenets are all wrong. Yes I believe that they are mistaken in areas where my beliefs don't match theirs exactly, but I generally don't believe that they are entirely mistaken, wrongheaded, and acting foolishly on the subject. I as a Christian have more common ground with Buddhists and Wiccans than I do with atheists.

'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Post by gillianren on Jul 28, 2010 13:19:37 GMT -4

Well, he's a biologist, so no doubt he feels pretty much the same way about evolution deniers that I, as an aerospace engineer, feel about Apollo deniers. In other words, here's the greatest thing that's been achieved in our respective areas and these people try to deny it. I admit he would be a better advocate if he held the anger in check more, but I can't blame him for being angry in the first place.

Oh, I feel angry about evolution deniers, too, but I don't think The God Delusion was a helpful title with which to encourage people to think intelligently about the great weight of evidence in favour of evolution. Tact is even more important if you are trying to show people where they're wrong.

Gillian

"This seems like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed."

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain

Post by Data Cable on Jul 28, 2010 13:30:47 GMT -4

It's a foregone conclusion. The fact that we are gravitationally bound to a generally spheroidal body which is orders of magnitude larger than ourselves is not intuitively obvious. Only through careful observation and investigation does its spheroidal nature become apparent.

Ergo, at some point since our species first emerged, only 1 out of every 10 h. sapiens on this big blue ball, either by personal investigation or education, believed that the ground beneath their feet was anything other than the seemingly endless plane which the evidence immediately available to them indicated it was. Mind you, I have no idea exactly when this was, in fact I'd speculate that it fluctuated over that line numerous times across history. This is also assuming that the present figure lies significantly below 90%. I have no doubt that flat-Earth belief still exists in a detectable fraction of the current human population.

Are you suggesting that the intuitively-derived belief of a flat-ish Earth was not, in fact, the default at the dawn of man, and therefore the graph must have passed, at least once, through the 90% point?

"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

Post by Data Cable on Jul 28, 2010 14:25:21 GMT -4

It was in fact an argument that someone who believes they know better than 90% of humanity is often arrogant.

Is it arrogance to believe, or even state, that the available evidence does not support the 90%?

There is a difference between merely not believing in something because you believe the evidence for its existence is unconvincing and taking the active stance that the evidence is in that something definitely doesn't exist and that those who believe otherwise are foolishly disregarding the inconvenient facts because of the emotional appeal of their belief.

True, but both are still benign.

There is also a distinct difference between "I choose not to believe, so leave me alone and I'll leave you alone," and "this belief of yours is evil and must be fought as much as possible."

Indeed. But how many atrocities have actually been committed in the name of atheism, as opposed to, say, theistic in-fighting?

I as a Christian have more common ground with Buddhists and Wiccans than I do with atheists.

Such as?

"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

Post by Jason on Jul 28, 2010 15:23:46 GMT -4

Is it arrogance to believe, or even state, that the available evidence does not support the 90%?

That would depend on how one believes or states it, wouldn't it?

True, but both are still benign.

Believing that most of the people around you are essentially mentally ill is benign? Cf: The God Delusion.

Indeed. But how many atrocities have actually been committed in the name of atheism, as opposed to, say, theistic in-fighting?

If we want to go by body counts and lives destroyed then the atheists (particularly the atheistic regimes of the 20th century) win hands down. If we go by count of years then people who profess a belief in God might win. But how can we calculate how many people earnestly believed (not just professed to believe) in God yet committed atrocities? The whole exercise is pointless.

I as a Christian have more common ground with Buddhists and Wiccans than I do with atheists.

Such as?

To begin with, the concepts of the existence of the divine and sacredness.

'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 28, 2010 17:01:37 GMT -4

Are you suggesting that the intuitively-derived belief of a flat-ish Earth was not, in fact, the default at the dawn of man, and therefore the graph must have passed, at least once, through the 90% point?

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking you to prove your claim. I do however disagree with your claim of "forgone conclusion" since I would suspect that the vast majority of the world's past population never even considered what shape the earth was, and even today few do, they merely take for granted what others tell them. To believe in something means that you need to take an active role in considering and thinking about it before reaching a conclusion. You'd have to first prove that at least 90% of the a given population actually did so before you can get to that they believed the earth was flat.

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah

"On two occasions, I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

Post by tedward on Jul 29, 2010 4:11:22 GMT -4

I would think that going on human nature, 90 of people will think they are right about anything.

Re body counts and wars etc. It is a bit unfair to say non rligious when the population has expanded over the years. Probably around the time of Bonapart I would say religion played less. Up till then religion has been used as an excuse for many hundreds of years, past the christian god.

I prefer to look at the human behind it, there were no gods involved (physically). Just man.

Post by Jason on Jul 29, 2010 12:17:20 GMT -4

Re body counts and wars etc. It is a bit unfair to say non rligious when the population has expanded over the years. Probably around the time of Bonapart I would say religion played less. Up till then religion has been used as an excuse for many hundreds of years, past the christian god.

That is my belief - that religion generally was used as an excuse to go do what the people already wanted to do, not as an actual motivating force. It would therefore be unfair to blame 'religion" as the cause of wars and atrocities.

'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Post by Jason on Aug 4, 2010 12:15:38 GMT -4

If it is arrogance to assert that all god claims are false, is it not only insignificantly less arrogant to assert that all god claims are false except one?

Again, that would depend on how one asserts it, wouldn't it?I do not say that atheists must of necessity be arrogant, merely that my observation is that they are prone to arrogance.

No less benign than believing that anyone who believes differently than oneself deserves eternal torture.

As it happens, I don't believe that anyone who believes differently from me is deserving of eternal torture, and my religion does not require me to.

Setting aside the issue of what constitutes an atheistic regime, how is any action thereof caused by atheism? Absence of belief in something is not a motivator. Belief in something is.

Atheism is not an absence of belief - that would be what I call Agnosticism.

No True Scotsman invocation duly noted.

We were speaking about whether religion motivated people to commit atrocities. I was merely pointing out that it isn't really possible to determine what really motivated an act, even when we have a person's testimony of why the believe they committed an act, so that the exercise is largely pointless.

How is belief in a god incompatible with contemptible behavior?

Did I argue that belief in a god is incompatible with contemptible behavior? Rather I said that there is no sure way to determine whether someone who committed atrocities also truly believed in God.

Have no gods ever permitted, expected, or even demanded atrocious acts of their adherents?

I suppose that depends on whether you believe any of these gods actually existed. If they didn't exist, then of course their adherents were making up their justifications themselves.

To begin with, the concepts of the existence of the divine and sacredness.

Absence of belief in a divine being (in which category many Buddhists belong) does not necessarily negate a concept of the sacred, e.g. an atheist can hold the Bill of Rights to be sacred.

But to an atheist what is sacred is merely a matter of personal or group opinion. To the religious (such as Buddhists), sacredness is a real and objective trait.

'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Post by echnaton on Aug 4, 2010 15:18:01 GMT -4

Atheism is not an absence of belief - that would be what I call Agnosticism.

The differences are not so clear to me. I would define atheist as ranging from the absence of belief to the outright denial of the existence of a supernatural power. While agnosticism appears to fit positions of being more undecided on whether or not to believe in a supernatural power ranging to a social position of someone who is indifferent to religion.

There is no one definition for these terms but many people seem to make a political sport out of setting absolutes for them.

But to an atheist what is sacred is merely a matter of personal or group opinion. To the religious (such as Buddhists), sacredness is a real and objective trait.

Can you explain what this actually means? What is a "real and objective trait" that only the religious can have?

For those who wish to maintain an illusion, ignorance is the best source of knowledge.

Post by Jason on Aug 4, 2010 15:37:12 GMT -4

Atheism is not an absence of belief - that would be what I call Agnosticism.

The differences are not so clear to me. I would define atheist as ranging from the absence of belief to the outright denial of the existence of a supernatural power. While agnosticism appears to fit positions of being more undecided on whether or not to believe in a supernatural power ranging to a social position of someone who is indifferent to religion.

There is no one definition for these terms but many people seem to make a political sport out of setting absolutes for them.

My definition of atheist is indeed more narrow than your own then.An atheist, to my mind, is someone who actively denies the existence of God. Someone who merely hasn't found enough evidence to believe in God's existence, or who remains undecided as to whether or not He exists is an agnostic in my book.

But to an atheist what is sacred is merely a matter of personal or group opinion. To the religious (such as Buddhists), sacredness is a real and objective trait.

Can you explain what this actually means? What is a "real and objective trait" that only the religious can have?

It's not a case of only the religious having this trait, but might be only the religious properly recognizing it when they encounter it.

To a religious person an idea or object is sacred as part of its inherent nature. Even if there was no one who remembered the history of an object or why it was sacred it would still be sacred, because it had encountered the divine.

'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Post by echnaton on Aug 4, 2010 17:07:11 GMT -4

It's not a case of only the religious having this trait, but might be only the religious properly recognizing it when they encounter it.

To a religious person an idea or object is sacred as part of its inherent nature. Even if there was no one who remembered the history of an object or why it was sacred it would still be sacred, because it had encountered the divine

This makes no sense to me. I realize there is a lot of "shorthand" in this compact explanation.

For those who wish to maintain an illusion, ignorance is the best source of knowledge.